A Retrospective Comparison of Conventional versus Transverse Mini-Incision Technique for Carpal Tunnel Release.

ISRN Neurology Pub Date : 2013-12-12 eCollection Date: 2013-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2013/721830
Ismail Gülşen, Hakan Ak, Gökhan Evcılı, Ozlem Balbaloglu, Enver Sösüncü
{"title":"A Retrospective Comparison of Conventional versus Transverse Mini-Incision Technique for Carpal Tunnel Release.","authors":"Ismail Gülşen, Hakan Ak, Gökhan Evcılı, Ozlem Balbaloglu, Enver Sösüncü","doi":"10.1155/2013/721830","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Background. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare the results of two surgical techniques, conventional and transverse mini-incision. Materials and Methods. 95 patients were operated between 2011 and 2012 in Bitlis State Hospital. 50 patients were operated with conventional technique and 45 of them were operated with minimal transverse incision. Postoperative complications, incision site problems, and the time of starting to use their hands in daily activities were noted. Results. 95 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 48. 87 of them were female and 8 were male. There was no problem of incision site in both of the two surgical techniques. Only in one patient, anesthesia developed in minimal incision technique. The time of starting to use their hands in daily activities was 22,2 days and 17 days in conventional and minimal incision technique, respectively. Conclusion. Two surgical techniques did not show superiority to each other in terms of postoperative complications and incision site problems except the time of starting to use their hands in daily activities. </p>","PeriodicalId":14626,"journal":{"name":"ISRN Neurology","volume":"2013 ","pages":"721830"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3875103/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ISRN Neurology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/721830","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background. In this retrospective study, we aimed to compare the results of two surgical techniques, conventional and transverse mini-incision. Materials and Methods. 95 patients were operated between 2011 and 2012 in Bitlis State Hospital. 50 patients were operated with conventional technique and 45 of them were operated with minimal transverse incision. Postoperative complications, incision site problems, and the time of starting to use their hands in daily activities were noted. Results. 95 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 48. 87 of them were female and 8 were male. There was no problem of incision site in both of the two surgical techniques. Only in one patient, anesthesia developed in minimal incision technique. The time of starting to use their hands in daily activities was 22,2 days and 17 days in conventional and minimal incision technique, respectively. Conclusion. Two surgical techniques did not show superiority to each other in terms of postoperative complications and incision site problems except the time of starting to use their hands in daily activities.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

传统腕管松解术与横向小切口技术的回顾性比较
背景。在这项回顾性研究中,我们旨在比较传统和横向小切口两种手术技术的效果。材料与方法。比特里斯州立医院在 2011 年至 2012 年期间为 95 名患者实施了手术。其中 50 名患者采用传统技术,45 名患者采用横向小切口手术。手术后并发症、切口部位问题和开始使用双手进行日常活动的时间均有记录。结果研究共纳入 95 名患者。平均年龄为 48 岁。其中 87 人为女性,8 人为男性。两种手术方法的切口都没有问题。只有一名患者在微切口技术中出现了麻醉。传统手术和微创手术患者开始使用双手进行日常活动的时间分别为 22.2 天和 17 天。结论。就术后并发症和切口部位问题而言,除了开始使用双手进行日常活动的时间外,两种手术技术并无优劣之分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信